“SEPP is exploring if, as a party possibly slandered in the City of Oakland complaint …”

That’s one of the pair of global warming lawsuits I covered in my October 6, 2017 “People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al” blog post. The People of the State of California v. BP P.L.C. et al. San Francisco Superior Court Case is the other one; both are basically identical. Within that post toward the end, I briefly described what was suspect about a particular line in the lawsuits, regarding Science and Environment Public Policy (SEPP) founder Dr S Fred Singer. Since the news over the weekend concerned SEPP’s mention of “slander,” I thought it would be worthwhile to show why it is that SEPP would say such a thing. Continue reading

County of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp. et al.
City of Santa Cruz v. Chevron Corp. et al.
City of Richmond v. Chevron Corp. et al.

Might as well save the trees and lower the carbon footprint of ink by either having one big 60 page+ lawsuit printout labeled “Fill-in-the-blank v. Various Oil Companies et al.,” or better yet, a single piece of paper brought to all future courthouses with “Fill-in-the-blank v. Any Energy Company We Can Think Of et al.” at the top, and “See County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. et al.” in the middle. Problem is, the recent craze of communities suing to recoup costs associated with man-caused global warming only amplifies the fatal problem within all of these lawsuits. Continue reading

City of New York v. BP PLC, et al.

Regarding this particular January 9, 2018 lawsuit filing*,[3/13/18 Author’s edit: that link now doesn’t function, but the archive of it does] I will say I am mildly surprised on how tame it is compared to others regarding citations of evidence which supposedly prove skeptic climate scientists and organizations associated with them are paid fossil fuel industry money to lie to the public. But when it concerns this lawsuit’s ties to the same old people surrounding that accusation, what’s found within this lawsuit is no surprise at all. Continue reading

The Moral Imperative to Stop Global Warming Strikes Again … er, strikes out

A big-money Catholic group just said it’s yanking all of its cash out of fossil fuels” — that was the headline of an early October 2017 CNBC News headline, referring to the Global Catholic Climate Movement organization (GCCM). With barely more than a glimpse at a quote within the article about “we feel strongly responsible to participate in tackling the issue of climate change,” I could already guess where this group was headed and who they relied on for their diatribe about the global warming issue. Continue reading

The Big Erik Conway Problem, Pt 2

What’s particularly maddening about this problem is the simplicity of its flip side, a crystal-clear snapshot of the way Naomi Oreskes, with her Merchants of Doubt co-author Erik Conway, supposedly exposed how public confusion over climate science results from organized campaigns designed to create confusion and delay political action, a tactic previously employed in efforts to deny the reality of acid rain, ozone depletion, and the link between tobacco and cancer, tactics now used in some cases by the same people who deny the reality of global warming. But in my November 18, 2017 blog post, I used Conway’s own words to show how the timeline of Oreskes’ so-called discovery of her ‘tobacco industry-connected’ critics fell apart, and the problems don’t stop there. Conway’s account of his collaboration with Oreskes on this ‘tobacco industry-connected climate scientists’ matter doesn’t offer a clearer picture of why atmospheric physicist Dr S Fred Singer was seemingly “the most dangerous man on the planet”, it begs for deeper investigation of why and how this portrayal of him coalesced in the first place. Continue reading

Oreskes’ Inability to Keep Her Mouth Shut & the Big Erik Conway Problem

In telling the tale of inadvertently discovering how skeptic climate scientists are corrupted, a person might be viewed as a hero or heroine, and it is understandably forgivable if the hero/heroine has a memory lapse about exactly when this event happened, or about minor narrative details surrounding it. But when the tale takes on an increasing appearance of being a fabrication designed to make the person look like a hero/heroine, unbiased objective thinkers will start to wonder why there would be any necessity for that kind of embellishment, and they might also wonder if there is something inherently wrong with the core of the tale. Continue reading

Is Blood thicker than Objective Reporting?

If anyone had engaged in a one-word internet search of the name “Oreskes” prior to October 31st, 2017, the results would have largely been for Naomi Oreskes, famed ‘exposer of corporate-corrupted skeptic climate scientists,’ with a sprinkling of other references to National Public Radio Chief Editor Michael Oreskes. After October 31st, albeit largely buried by news of the Manhattan terrorist attack, the news about Michael Oreskes’ alleged indiscretions was hard to miss. Continue reading

County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp. et al.
County of Marin v. Chevron Corp. et al.
City of Imperial Beach v. Chevron Corp. et al.

It’s one thing for assorted article writers, amateur private bloggers, prominent professional bloggers, reporters, and political advocacy groups to regurgitate the unsupportable insinuation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by Big Coal & Oil to lie to the public while working the old “leaked memo phrase” reposition global warming as theory rather than fact into the narrative, but it’s much more serious when this comes up in major global warming “costs” court cases. Continue reading

Making my Case for Me

When I say there is only one source for the idea that a fossil fuel industry conspiracy exists where skeptic climate scientists are instructed and paid to lie to the public about the settled science of catastrophic man-caused global warming, I’m not exaggerating in any way. Today, I offer a one-two punch: first, part of a presentation at The 2015 Conference on Communication and Environment in Boulder where I will highlight a particular line with red letters which inadvertently proves my point, made by a “doctor of Rhetoric and Composition.” Then, a days-old video I was alerted to which features not only a couple of the usual suspects whose efforts to smear skeptic climate scientists date from nearly a decade / nearly two decades back, but also a line seen within the video dating from the 1991 origins of the smear. Continue reading